Total Visits

Friday, 28 June 2013

12th July is English National Unity Day

On the 12th July 927AD King Athelstan of the Royal House of Wessex, was recognised as the first King of all England at the Council of Eamont, Cumberland. The English Democrats will be holding celebrations on the 12th July 2013 across England to mark English Unity Day and to call for an English Unity National Holiday.

Robin Tilbrook, Chairman of the English Democrats said:-

“This 12th July will be the one thousand and eighty sixth anniversary of English Unity. It was the day on which King Athelstan realised the dream of the Venerable Bede and Alfred the Great and completed the mission of the Royal House of Wessex to unite England into a single united Nation State.

“England is by far the oldest Nation State in Europe and arguably the oldest Nation State on earth.

“The 12th July is an anniversary of history and pride for all patriotic Englishmen and Englishwomen and should be celebrated with all the enthusiasm that the Americans bring to their Independence Day or the French bring to Bastille Day.”

Notes to Editors

The recently published 2011 Census showed that England has over 32 million (32,007,983) people (or 60.4%) who have stated they have only English National Identity. A further 4.8 million (4,820,181) people (or 9.1%) stated that their National Identity is 'English and British'.

In sharp contrast with this nearly 70% being English there were only a mere 10 million (10,171,834) people (or 19.2%) who claimed to be 'British Only'. A substantial proportion of these 'British Only' appear, from cross referencing with the results of the Census' ethnicity question, to be of non English ethnicity (ie Scottish, Welsh or Irish).

Also demand for English Independence is increasing rapidly in England and although reactive to the movement for Scottish Independence it is not dependent on it. The June 2011 ComRes survey done for the BBC showed that then there was 36% support for England to be a fully Independent Country irrespective of the result of the Scottish Independence Referendum.

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Instead of making huge cuts, mainly to English services, the English Democrats could call for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut:-

The WHOLE of the English Taxpayers’ subsidy of the EU of £16 billion a year; and

The WHOLE of the Foreign Aid budget (taxpayers' money extorted from us on the basis of the national interest should only be used in the national benefit!); and

The WHOLE of the £49 billion a year subsidy that English Taxpayers are likewise compelled to give to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (let's take all the Parties of Scotland at their word and have true "Fiscal Autonomy"!).

I make that £77 billion a year off the "deficit" withourt a single cut to English services. What do you think?

Tuesday, 25 June 2013

Much of the media focus on UKIP recently has been about the rough ride that they got in the recent Scottish Parliament by-election. Despite all the flack (and publicity) and also their huge efforts and vast expense they achieved a very modest result.

More interesting from the English Nationalist point of view though is what standing there demonstrates about UKIP's credentials as, in any sense, an English Nationalist party (which is something that has been trumpeted whenever it seemed likely to give them electoral advantage).

So I am glad to see that Nigel Farage, in his very own words, has dispelled the myth that he and UKIP might be interested in English Nationalism (as anything other than a willing donkey!). NO English Nationalist could possibly have been quoted saying this:-

"Aberdeen is as much a part of my country as Axminster, Aberystwyth or Antrim," Mr Farage added. After being heckled by the protesters last month Mr Farage said: “We have never had a reception like this anywhere in Britain before. Clearly, it’s anti-British and anti-English. They hate the Union Jack.”

Monday, 24 June 2013

The report below, about jobs in Sheffield, shows the danger to English interests of not having anyone fighting for our people's interests to be taken properly into account and protected in the current disunited UK.

It also confirms the problem of relying upon globalist/ foreign owned business to create job security.

Remember also, when reading the article, that any subsidies offered by the Scottish Government have mostly come out of the pockets of English taxpayers!

My taxes went to Scotland and all I got was this lousy P45

HP will axe workers in Sheffield and shunt their roles to Renfrewshire in Scotland to bag a £7m grant from the Scottish government, the Public and Commercial Services (PCS) trade union claims.It's understood the multimillion-pound grant from the public purse is a reward for boosting local employment.About a third of support workers at HP's offices in the City of Steel face the chop - that's 124 of 350, according to the PCS which has 1,500 unionised members working for the tech goliath.An HP spokesman confirmed to The Register the planned overhaul of the regional offices."We have informed our employees recently about some work that will transition from our Sheffield site to our Regional Delivery Centres in Newcastle and Erskine [in Renfrewshire]," the PR man said.The Sheffield site will remain open as other parts of HP’s business are run from those premises, he added. It was first opened by EDS to attract graduates from the two universities based in Sheffield.The 124 workers facing redundancy designed and maintained systems for the UK government's Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), such as those used by Job Centre Plus offices, said the PCS.Industrial officer Alan Brown told The Reg that the union's major concern was that HP was replacing "experienced, dedicated staff", many of whom transferred from the civil service on good terms.He expected the services received by the DWP to be "stretched" once the workers are expunged.In fiscal 2011, the Scottish government made a "regional selective assistance grant" of £7m to HP Enterprise Services, under the expectation the vendor will create 721 new jobs in Erskine. The PCS said £3.5m of that has already been paid."HP is taking jobs elsewhere from the country to get £3.5m of taxpayer money to do work in the public sector, that is an issue for me. Pitting one area of the country against another sounds a bit sleazy," said Brown.It's now feared councils and other regional authorities around the UK will have to start stumping up grants to attract or keep employers in their areas.No relocation package has yet been offered to any HPers in Sheffield willing to move north, according to union sources, but a manager has been appointed to oversee this process.Brown said the PCS was balloting members over the job cuts and separately on a 1.6 per cent consolidated pay rise offered to HP staff.HP is in the process of slashing 29,000 jobs worldwide by 2014, as part of an ironically entitled “make it better” programme. Trade union Unite estimated this project will cut 1,600 roles in the UK; the PCS estimated up to 1,500.HP refused to comment on whether the changes to Sheffield were part of the mass redundancy programme.CEO Meg Whitman revealed in March at the Morgan Stanley Technology Media and Telecoms conference that HP was nearly half way through its three-year redundancy schedule.The programme came under renewed focus at the end of last year when HP's European Works Council, which represents the tech titan's employees, took the company to court, saying its members were not being properly consulted over the redundancies.The works council has since resumed negotiations

Saturday, 22 June 2013

In the last few weeks I have been pleased to see that the English Movement and Cause is gaining more and more official recognition. Of course the reporting and comment is all from opponents of English Nationalism. These opponents however now fear that if the English Nationalist dog isn’t thrown the occasional bone it may bite them in their tender parts (like the wallet!).

We have had here a call for proper English Devolution, although still mixed in with Graham Allen MP’s talk of trying to break England up.

If he thinks that breaking England up will put English Nationalism back in its box, then he need look no further than the history of conflict on the other side of St George’s Channel! (AKA the Irish Sea). Here is a link to this piece. Click here >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-22826860

Friday, 21 June 2013

I have chosen such a controversial title because the Establishment view usually suggests that nationalism is the cause of many of the world’s troubles. Of course I do not think that all troubles could be solved by nationalism but may be many more than people usually think.

I am interested in history, both the sweep of it in terms of human development and in all the civilisations of the world, but mostly in Western civilisation and especially anything to do with England.

As part of my general reading I have recently read a very interesting book, it is called:-

Churchill's First War: Young Winston and the Fight Against the Taliban

by Con Coughlin

I would recommend this book to anyone interested not only in Winston Churchill and in military history, but also in current affairs in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

For the purposes of the title of this article however, the interesting thing that appears in the book is that a significant part of the reason why there has been more or less continuous disorder, wars and bloodshed in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan (and before that North West Frontier of British India), is because of an, all too typical, decision by a British bureaucrat. While a recurring feature of the British administrative mind-set seems to have been, and to continue to be, an almost total disregard of people’s ideas of their own communities. You have only got to think of how a variety of hopelessly unstable African States have been left with parts of tribes in various different States. Of course as part of the imperial plan of “Divide and Rule” it may have been quite useful to have various parts of antagonistic tribunal groups cancelling each other out. It seems to me that it may well be part of this mind-set that has engineered the current divisions of “communities” in England under the doctrine now called multiculturalism.

In this book however what emerges is that a British bureaucrat by the name of Durand arbitrarily decided the boundary between British India and Afghanistan without any real effort to consult anybody who might be affected by his decision. On the contrary he drew a line on maps following only geography, rather than considering the social/societal implications of his decisions. The upshot of this is that Pashtuns, who were a long way towards becoming a Nation with an idea of themselves as a national identity, suddenly found themselves divided in such an arbitrary way that villagers might even have been divided from their own fields between British India, as it then was, and Afghanistan. In many ways all the fighting and bloodshed ever since can be understood as a liberation struggle of a Nation seeking to assert its nationhood against a variety of foreign interferences.

I wonder if instead of dividing the Pashtuns, the British imperial colonial administration had decided to unite them in an independent territory, whether there would have been any of the imperialist adventures described in this book, by Churchill or ever since?

I suggest that if our foreign policy focussed more on supporting the creation of States wherever possible with a clear sense of self as a Community and Nation rather than the administrative mind-set of supporting often deeply unpopular and undemocratic statist structures, whether the world would not already have been a much happier and better place in which people genuinely respected the “diversity” of the world’s Nations.

One of the world’s Nations whose Integrity and Unity needs to be Respected is of course that of the English Nation. We do not need to be broken up under some British imperialist legacy of Divide and Rule!

Saturday, 8 June 2013

The Economist magazine apologised to the English Democrats this 1st June for calling us “Far Right”.

The Economist had published an article about the current state of National Identity in England. It was written from a bit of a strange perspective. It only looked at the issue of National Identity from the somewhat undemocratic end of the telescope, as their perspective seemed to be more about what was acceptable to “ethnic minorities” than the perspective of what the majority might feel about their National Identity.

From the other end of the telescope and as I have written on previous occasions the exciting thing about the Census results, from an English Nationalist perspective is that 70% of the population of England say that they are “English” and over 60% said they were “English Only”, that is over 32 million people!

Obviously however a magazine is entitled to take an editorial decision that they are more interested in the ethnic minority’s than in the majorities opinion but what they are not entitled to do is to use untruth and innuendo to smear us. In this case I have taken action because of the “Far Right” smear against the English Democrats. I set out below the sequence of events. First, here is the Economist's article:-

May 25th 2013

IN 1924, speaking on St George’s Day, the then prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, gave thanks that for once he could refer to England “without some fellow at the back of the room shouting out: ‘Britain!’” Even then, the tendency of the English to forget the other nations of the United Kingdom irritated the politically correct. The distinction between Britain and England continues to confuse tourists; the natives furrow their brows, too. Filling in their census forms in 2011, some 60% of people in England gave their national identity as “English” only, whereas 19% gave it as “British” only. (The remainder were from another part of Britain, foreign nationals or claimed multiple national identities.) But, as data released on May 16th showed, there is great variation. Whether a person considers himself English first or British first is a powerful predictor of class, race and political persuasion. Blacks and Asians are far more likely to consider themselves British: just 8% of ethnic Bangladeshis in England identify straightforwardly as English, for example. The old are more likely to describe themselves as English than the young. And among white Britons there is a geographical divide. In central London and other wealthy places, Britishness is popular: just 57.5% of white Britons in Cambridge call themselves English. In poorer spots along the Thames Estuary, in the West Midlands and in many northern cities, Englishness is the default identity (see map). As Britain and Britishness have become more ethnically diverse, and as Scottish and Welsh nationalists have asserted themselves, many white Britons have turned to Englishness as an alternative identity. A poll by IPPR, a think-tank, finds that people who consider themselves English rather than British tend to be more hostile to immigration and more likely to vote for right-wing parties such as the UK Independence Party. For some, the flag of St George is too closely associated with far-right groups such as the English Defence League. That repels ethnic minorities and wealthy white liberals. Yet there are reasons for optimism. Mixed-race people are far more likely to claim an English identity: some 46% identified themselves that way in the census. People with mixed black Caribbean and white parentage identify as English almost as often as whites do. And in some places where Englishness in general is more common, such as the West Midlands, ethnic minorities as well as whites are embracing it. That suggests that Englishness is becoming less exclusive. Some would like that process to speed up. Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future, another think-tank, reckons that the government should do more to create a more civic English identity. Though white Britons are broadly tolerant of other races, a survey in 2008 found that over half would not consider a non-white person to be English even if he was born in England. Still, few question the Englishness of the England football team—which contains several black players. If that bunch of serial losers can unite the nation, developing a few other sources of English pride ought not to be too difficult. ________________________________________________________________ After having read the article I wrote to the Economist this email and also sent it as a letter:-

In the above article you have published the following statement:- "For some, the flag of St George is too closely associated with far-right groups such as the English Defence League and the English Democrats."

The English Democrats are not, and never have been, “Far-Right” and you have no conceivable honest justification in making or publishing such a blatant and politically partisan slur.

In fact the English Democrats are the English nationalist party which campaigns for a Parliament for England, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; for a Referendum to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).

In the circumstances I write to formally request a full right of reply to be published in your next issue.

Please confirm your agreement to the above, within the next 48 hours, failing which we shall forthwith make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

Many thanks for your note, regarding the description of the English Democrats in last week's issue of The Economist. I accept that it is inaccurate to refer to the party as "far-right" and I am sorry that we did so. I will print a correction in this week's issue (which appears on Friday) and also amend the online version of the article, appending a note to explain why.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch in future. Your note appears to have reached several people; I am the right person for complaints regarding the Britain section.

Thank you. I wasn't sure to whom I should complain. I think that I am also entitled to a Right of Reply but would be happy to do this cooperatively by way of a letter commenting on the Article and without being too pointed about the error.

Dear Mr Tilbrook, Please send a letter to our letters editor--email address in the paper. Letters do not appear immediately, but two weeks after the publication of the article to which they refer. I cannot guarantee your letter will appear in the paper, but we will run it online. In my view a correction is the appropriate response to your complaint--you are challenging us on a point of fact, not on a point of argument.

In our article “Identity parade”, published in last week’s issue, we described the English Democrats as “far-right”. This is inaccurate. They are a nationalist party that campaigns for an English parliament. Sorry. This has been corrected online.

I will do that. Our letters editor is happy to run a trimmed version of your letter--please see below. This may not be the absolute final version: we sometimes need to cut letters further to make them all fit on a single page. I like your point about the popularity of English independence v the popularity of Scottish independence.

Joel Budd

—

SIR - In reply to your article on Englishness ("Identity parade", May 25th) I would point out that the 2011 census showed that 60.4% of people in England stated their only national identity as "English" and a further 9.1% said it was "English and British". In sharp contrast only 19.2% claimed to be "British only".

The demand for English independence is increasing in England. A ComRes survey in June 2011 found 36% support for England to be a fully independent country, irrespective of the result of the Scottish independence referendum. Since then support has grown and the demand for independence is now significantly more popular for England than for Scotland.

On the subject of Independence, Prof Charlie Jeffery told me that there is about to be published the annual British Social Attitudes Survey (which is considered by academics to be the Gold Standard of opinion polling evidence) which he said will show that the demand for English Independence has risen and is now "substancial but not yet overwhelming or an absolute majority". I take this to mean in the upper 40s%.

There is also research evidence that much of UKIP's current support is from people who are now identifying as English nationalists and who, intruigingly, want Independence from the UK. Their tactical support of that British nationalist party is apparently because one aspect of their desire is Independence from the EU!

A Scottish nationalist might point out that the prospect of English independence is considerably more distant than the prospect of Scottish independence from Britain (or, for that matter, the prospect of a British departure from the EU). No referendum looms on English independence. So the question is rather more theoretical at this stage.

Yes that Scottish Nationalist would be right because such things don't just happen, they have to be campaigned for - usually by a political party. In their case the SNP has been campaigning for this since 1927! The English have yet to get started! We have had a longstanding trait of being slow starters but thorough finishers if we once get going. The impression that I get is that there is a growing feeling that we might be starting now.

Having got the apology and correction agreed as you see I have pushed for a letter to be published as well. Finally I would like to thank those who drew this issue to my attention. I do think that the above shows that a focussed campaign of complaining does work.

Thursday, 6 June 2013

The article below from the Daily Mail shows two things. One is that big foreign owned businesses cannot be trusted to make decisions which are either in our People's or in our Country’s interests. The second is that individual English people need to take up some of the fight themselves personally.

The selection process described seems clearly to be illegally discriminatory contrary to the Equality Act 2010.

Any English person who applied and was properly qualified and yet who did not get the job should be taking their case to the Employment Tribunal.

Also anyone who would like a bit of extra money who is also properly qualified should be applying for these jobs and then when refused taking Abellio to the Employment Tribunal.

As a specialist litigation solicitor I would be delighted to help professionally!

Here is the article:-

“Bus firm flew bosses to Poland to hire 50 foreign drivers after claiming they could not find Brits to fill the jobs

2.46 million Britons on the dole... but company still goes abroad for workers

Emerges days after Home-office sponsored groups says immigrants ARE taking British jobs

By Daily Mail Reporter31 May 2013

Bus operator Abellio flew to Poland to recruit 50 new drivers claiming they could not find any suitable British candidates'

A UK bus operator flew bosses to Poland to recruit 50 new drivers despite there being 2.6million people on the dole in the UK.

Abellio, a subsidiary of the Dutch state rail operator, claimed it could not find suitable British candidates to work on routes in central and South West London.

The firm went on a massive recruitment drive in former Soviet country to expand its workforce. They claimed that there were 'no suitable' Britons.

But a current employee at the transport giant said he knew a number of friends who had been interviewed for the posts - and turned down.

'The Routemaster will soon be back in the capital. What a shame if British drivers miss out on the chance to drive it,' the driver, who wished to remain anonymous, told the Sun.

An Abellio spokesman said: 'In order to supplement recruitment in the UK we held an open day in Poland where 51 experienced bus drivers were recruited.

'We are not aware of any occasion where a suitable candidate has been turned away.'

The Polish drivers, some of whom have already started work, will be paid £10.60 an hour for the first two years at which point it will increase to £11.50.

There are currently 2.64 million unemployed people in Britain. Critics would suggest that any number of these would have been suitable candidates to drive the iconic buses.

It is of interest that on Abellio's website there is the following statement:-

Abellio operates public transport contracts in Europe, while working in partnership every day to consistently exceed passengers’ and stakeholders’ expectations. Every day, we deliver rail and bus services to over 1 million passengers in the UK, Germany and the Czech Republic. Our parent company, Netherlands Railways, has a concession for operating the core rail network in the Netherlands. Abellio was established to acquire and operate passenger transport services outside the Netherlands. We want to become an owning group which is recognised across Europe for our excellence in customer service and our co-operation with stake-holders and industry partners.